I can appreciate you don't like this, but much like someone thats warlike about mistaken grammar, I'm a bit at a loss for how the original action is that problematic compared to the intolerant response. Its minor spam that gets downranked my most options for reading, presuming you're not desperate on reading every single comment but that's a bit inconsistent with the "taking away my time" slight you appear to be offended by

[–] NoSpotOfGround@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

There's a certain cost-benefit imbalance in these habits: sure, it's not a great cost to leave some litter around. People can just step over it. But while one person marginally benefits from it, hundreds more pay the (also tiny, admittedly) cost of the unpleasantness. When you multiply it like that, the negligible becomes gligible.

[–] porcoesphino@mander.xyz 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

So anyone that says something others don't like shouldn't speak?

The whole platform is based around upvotes and downvotes as a signal to highlight/filter (via sorting) posts and comments that, based on the viewing algorithm chosen, are more/less useful to an averaged user.

I get the litter analogy, that was blindingly obvious from the first comment. I just don't think it carries well for a platform like this, or quickly expands to "I don't personally like your comments and the way you use this platform so stop". I appreciate sometimes that's needed, but this seems pretty far from those situations. Plus the post seemed presumptuous and insulting because... someone used a tool slightly differently than them and had the audacity to reply?